2. Mr A complains that Cafcass incorrectly told a court that he had been convicted of assaulting his ex-wife, which he says did not happen.
3. As a result, he says he has been caused a great deal stress, sadness, and depression.
4. He is seeking an apology, service improvements, and financial remedy as an outcome to his complaint.
Administrative background
5. To put this complaint into context, it may be helpful to explain briefly Cafcass’s role and responsibilities.
6. Cafcass provides advice and support to help the family court, and families, make decisions in the best interests of children. Its role is to safeguard and promote the welfare of children; give advice to the court about any application made to it in cases about children; make provision for the children to be represented in the case if necessary, and provide information, advice and other support for the children and their families.
7. It carries out these duties by helping the family agree arrangements for the child (if possible), carrying out initial safeguarding checks to see if the child is safe, and if asked by the court, prepares a report on the child which usually concludes with recommendations about what the arrangements should be.
8. The court is under no obligation to follow Cafcass’s recommendations. However, it should consider the report as a piece of evidence to be relied upon, or not, when making its decision. Like any piece of evidence, this can be challenged in court. If appropriate, the parties may be able to ask questions in court of the person who has written the report. It will then be for the court to decide what weight, if any, to place on that challenge.
9. As part of its safeguarding responsibilities, Cafcass makes checks to see if any of the parties, including the child, have had any involvement with the police and if so, whether the police have any concerns about the child’s safety. Cafcass report the results of these checks to the court in a safeguarding letter.
Complaint background
10. On 12 June 2020, Cafcass submitted a safeguarding letter which referred to a previous report it had written (in April 2018) during an earlier involvement in court proceedings. The letter noted that, among other things, the earlier report had referred to an incident in May 2017 where Mr A had been convicted of assaulting his ex-partner.
11. Shortly after receiving the safeguarding letter, Mr A contacted Cafcass to say this was untrue, and that the conviction had later been overturned on appeal.
12. On 25 June 2020, Cafcass sent the court an updated safeguarding letter, noting Mr A’s concerns about the accuracy of the earlier one. It said it had since checked the information it had received from the police and, although the incident involving Mr A and his ex-wife had occurred in May 2017, he had been convicted some months later (in February 2018). It added that, in March 2018, a court had issued an unlimited ‘Protection from Harassment Order’ to protect Mr A’s ex-partner. Cafcass said it had advised Mr A that, if he believed the information to be inaccurate, he would need to contact the relevant police force about this.
13. Mr A complained to Cafcass about what had happened. He said Cafcass had made a mistake in that, although it said he had been convicted of assault, he had later successfully appealed against this conviction (in September 2018).
14. Cafcass said that, although the original report had mentioned the conviction, it had also made clear that Mr A had appealed against it and was awaiting the outcome. Cafcass added that the information it had received from the police more recently showed that, on 9 November 2018, a court had varied the order issued in March 2018. Cafcass said that, although the order had been varied, this did not mean the conviction had been overturned as Mr A claimed. Cafcass explained that it could not comment on whether the information it had received from the police was accurate – only the police could confirm that. In the circumstances, it was satisfied it had not misrepresented the facts, as Mr A had claimed.
17. When considering Mr A’s complaint, we are not looking at whether Mr A had been convicted of assault. Or, if so, whether that conviction had been subsequently overturned at appeal. Instead, we are looking at whether Cafcass accurately reported the information the police provided to it.
18. Due to Cafcass’s Recording and Retention policy the ‘police checks’ information it provided in the safeguarding letter has now been deleted. However, we have made our own enquires with the local Police. They have confirmed that Mr A’s Police National Computer Record indicates a conviction of ‘battery’ in March 2018, followed by the sentencing being ‘subsequently varied’ in November 2018. This supports what Cafcass has said in its response to Mr A’s complaint. We are satisfied from this that Cafcass reported the information accurately which, under our Principles of Good Administration in being open and accountable, is what we would have expected it to do.
19. Under our Principles of Good Administration – being customer focussed – we expect organisations to refer services users to other sources of help where appropriate. We can see that when Cafcass became aware Mr A disagreed with the information, it made the court aware of his disagreement. Further, it advised him to raise his concerns with the police about the accuracy of the information. Both actions were in line with our expectations.
20. As we have explained, the court was responsible for deciding the childcare arrangements. As such, it would have been for the court to consider Mr A’s concerns about the accuracy of the information. In making the court aware of Mr A’s concerns, Cafcass was acting in a helpful manner. In addition, the police, not Cafcass, were responsible for providing information about Mr A’s conviction. In advising Mr A to raise his concerns with the police, Cafcass was again acting helpfully, and in line with our expectations.
21. We can understand why Mr A would be distressed and sad to think that inaccurate information about him may exist. We can also understand why he would feel so strongly about getting such information corrected. However, we have so far seen nothing to suggest Cafcass acted inappropriately based on the information it had received. For that reason, we have decided to not uphold this complaint.
1. We have decided to not uphold this complaint. Based on the evidence we have seen we are satisfied the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (Cafcass) did not provide incorrect information to the courts. However, we do appreciate the impact the situation had on Mr A.